Re: Misclassification of packages; "libs" and "doc" sections
Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> Ok, I think this is what I meant, except that I was thinking of the UI end. This is
> definitely how to do the datastructure, though. (suggestions as to how to represent the above
> without resorting to GL [1] are welcome ;-) )
>
What's GL?
Daniel, we clearly have some disagreement here :) You just have to
look at the hierarchy graph to see what's different. In your other
posts in this thread, you give as example:
Package: xmms
Category: main
Priority: Optional
Section: sound/music/players
Formats: mp3, mod, wav
Package: emacs
Category: main
Priority: Optional
Section: editors/devel, devel/editors
In the second one, there's a package that's in two sections simultaneously
but the hierarchy seems to be a tree.
That is
Apps
/ \
/ \
/ \
Editors Devel
| |
| |
Devel Edit
| |
| |
emacs emacs
Which means something like, emacs is an application which is an editor
which is a devel tool, or emacs is an application which is a devel tool
which is an editor. Anyway, this is a tree.
Whereas in the scheme I offer this would like more like
( ---* : arrow to right, means is-a here)
( [<package-name>] : indicates package <package-name> )
User_Proggy Development_Tool
* * * *
/ \ | \
Editor X11_Client(opt) Developers_Editor \
* * * * \
|___________|______________ /_________| Interpreter
| / *
| / |
Kitchen_Sink | / Lisp_Interpreter
* | / *
\ | / |
\___[ emacs20 ] ________________________|
Whatever :) I wanted to emphasize that this is a graph rather than a
tree. Conceptually it may be 100 % wrong, but we have to come up
with a correct one if we want to solve the categorization problem.
> > An example is release management. If subsystem boundaries are small
> > compared to inter-subsystem dependencies then a subsystem can be
> > released as a sub-distribution; the release management can be decoupled
> > from that of other sub-systems. Also each subsystem may have different
> > formal requirements, in other words this is for implementation of
> > the distribution, not the interface :) A user would be less
> > interested in this.
>
> ah, ok. You may want to look through the archives; people suggest this periodically,
> although I don't think anyone ever gave quite such a detailed explanation.
>
I'm suggesting it periodically. :) If there's anybody else I'd be
pleased to know. Does it date back to package-pools rose war? [An
internet discussion in which everybody finds the other parties
right and comments on how smart they are :), and most probably nothing
gets done in the end :) ]
>
> [snip -- I'll put this on the ever-growing queue of stuff I want to look at in the future..
> hopefully that'll be the NEAR future..]
You said "this weekend" ;)
If we could devise an external way to categorize packages (packages
doesn't have to be mod'd), than we can start a "Debian Ontology Task
Force", and hack together an ontology.
Keep categorizing,
--
Eray (exa) Ozkural
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
e-mail: erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
Reply to: